Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
I am all for the authors joining the discussion but reject the idea
that we shouldn't discuss a published work on this list.
As for the idea that reviewers of the JCB have the same level of what
I might call "justified technical skepticism" as the 1,500 odd
members of this list, I think that it lacks merit.
My three* cents worth,
Jim P.
* Inflation. US cents aren't worth what they were.
>Search the CONFOCAL archive at
>http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>
>Sorry to disturb the discussion, but shouldn't the authors be asked before
>starting an extended discussion on the material and concluding that the
>results might be artefacts? After all, the referees of JBC did accept the
>manuscript for publication.
>
>It might just be a question of style, but the present discussion occurs
>possibly without the knowledge of the authors that their paper is taken
>apart on the www. The E-mail address of the corresponding author is given
><>. The discussion is certainly outmost relevant - no
>doubt about that - but we can learn much more when the authors get the
>opportunity to take part.
>
>Cheers
>Alexander
>
>=======================================
>Alexander Schulz
>Bioimaging Group
>Department of Plant Biology
>The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, KVL
>Thorvaldsensvej 40
>DK-1871 Frederiksberg C,
>Copenhagen Denmark
>____________________________________________
>Phone +45-3528-3350
>Fax +45-3528-3365
>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>=======================================
>
>At 16:13 08-12-2004, you wrote:
>>Search the CONFOCAL archive at
>>http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>>
>>Are the images shown in the paper raw or were they filtered in anyway
>>before calculating the ratios? It is not mentioned in the methods. That
>>could cause artefactual "spots"
>>
>>Leoncio A. Vergara MD
>>Research Assistant Professor
>>Department of Neuroscience and Cell Biology
>>Director, Optical Imaging Laboratory (O.I.L.)
>>University of Texas Medical Branch
>>301 University Boulevard
>>Galveston, Texas 77555-0641
>>
>>(409) 772-3970
>>(409) 772-3982
>>www.oil.utmb.edu
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>>Behalf Of Stephen Cody
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 7:20 PM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: Better than possible confocal images?
>>
>>Search the CONFOCAL archive at
>>http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>>
>>Dear Christof,
>>
>>I'd have to share your scepticism. Considering FIG 1B in this paper is
>>an intensity map, and the dendrite that is highlighted in FIG IC can
>>hardly be seen in Fig 1B I'm not convinced that what they show is
>>anything but noise or edge artefact.
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>Stephen H. Cody
>>
>>Microscopy Manager
>>Central Resource for Advanced Microscopy
>>Ludwig Institute For Cancer Research
>>PO Box 2008 Royal Melbourne Hospital
>>Parkville Victoria 3050
>>Australia
>>Tel: 61 3 9341 3155 Fax: 61 3 9341 3104
>>email: [log in to unmask]
>>www.ludwig.edu.au/labs/confocal.html
>>www.ludwig.edu.au/confocal
--
****************************************
Prof. James B. Pawley, Ph. 608-263-3147
Room 223, Zoology Research Building, FAX 608-265-5315
1117 Johnson Ave., Madison, WI, 53706 [log in to unmask]
"A scientist is not one who can answer questions but one who can
question answers." Theodore Schick Jr., Skeptical Enquirer, 21-2:39
|
